Polls
Nobody should be surprised that a current poll shows lots of Americans think Bush screwed the pooch in Iraq. When I hear that two-thirds of Americans disapprove of how Bush is handling Iraq, my only real question is who are the 31 percent who think Bush is doing a good job, and how can we keep them away from sharp objects?
Dig a little deeper into the numbers and you’ll see that those 31% are almost all Republicans. Two-thirds of Republicans think Bush is doing a heck of a job over there while more than 90% of Democrats can see what a mess he’s made. The only people left who will support him are the party loyalists.
February 26th, 2007 at 2:46 pm
Because nothing says insightful post like tossing around a well-known poll, followed by poorly-formed attacks against the political party you don’t agree with.
But, hey, I suppose a third of independents don’t matter, and popularity determines correctness of an action.
February 26th, 2007 at 2:51 pm
Yeah, but what if you ask the follow up question . . . why do you think he’s screwed it up.
My response would be that he never admitted from the get go that Iraq was less about Iraq and WMD (in fact it had nothing to do with them) and all about 1) defining the battle ground for the war agasint syria and iran (and then, by extension Al Quaeda and Hezbollah and terorrists general) and 2) secure the energy resources necessary to make us immune to Saudi threats and effectivly put pressure on them.
If he had been upfront about this from the get go, he’s have a lot less opposition now (or at least, a more understanding public).
Of course, not sending enough troops over to get the job done hasn’t helped, but really thats more of a pr issue – we have the troops and they are doing a great job. He just fucked up explaining what its all about.
February 26th, 2007 at 2:55 pm
I’m hardly a party loyalist, and I don’t really think he screwed up any worse than any other president would have. That’s not to say I don’t think mistakes were made, but I think someone once said that every side in war makes mistakes, and the winner is the side that makes the fewest. I think it’s too early to call it a failure and start looking for someone to blame.
The Administrations biggest mistakes weren’t in the war itself, but in not doing enough to shore up support for it at home. They wanted everyone to believe this could be done cheap, quick, and dirty, and well, that’s not the case. Iraq was going to be a long term commitment, and they failed in making people understand that, and to be prepared for it.
February 26th, 2007 at 3:00 pm
+1 to what Countertop said, and I’ll add this:
The reason things are not going as well as they should is because we half-stepped during most of it. Maybe we had to because we just don’t have enough soliders (thanks to both Bush I and Clinton) to do the job right. Maybe there were miscalculations also. I’d say some of both.
But now we’re gonna cut and run and it won’t be two years before we’re attacked again, on our soil.
I blame both parties for not having the sense and guts to do it right the first time, and not trusting in us, the people, to understand why we’re doing what we’re doing.
February 26th, 2007 at 3:01 pm
The war was won when the Hussein regime was militarily defeated and brought down. IF that governemnt was a threat, it ceased to be a threat. Leave then…and let it be known that any subsequent government which threatened us would be destroyed. But noooo…
Establishing a democracy is NOT a Constitutional function. Contrarily our Constitution “guarantees a republican form of government.” Our founders rejected “democracy”.
And why does our government have open borders and import Islam, the very groupamong from which the enemy terrorist comes. That policy allows our enemy to enter and stay in our nation, thus giving them “aid and comfort” which is the precise definition of “treason” in Article III, Section 3 of our Constitution.
Our problem is NOT in Iraq, but in Washington D.C….traitors masquerading as Republicans and Democrats.
February 26th, 2007 at 3:27 pm
Well, gee, if everyone and their dog thinks George Bush has messed up so badly in Iraq, why on earth is it so hard for the Democrats to do anything about it? I mean, such an issue should be a slam-dunk for them.
The reason is that the Democrats have bet the farm on “slam-dunk” issues before (gun control, anyone?) and ended up losing big. That, and there are critical divisions over Iraq within the Democrat party that the MSM and Demo apologists continue to ignore or gloss over. Iraq is a losing issue for them, and they know it. In their minds, it’s better to do nothing and hope the voters blame BusHitler for everything in 2008.
February 26th, 2007 at 6:45 pm
Invading Iraq has/had done NOTHING when it comes to “making America safer”. Bush and company squandered any sympathy the world had for us when he began this fuckup in Iraq. I used to be Pro-Bush/Pro-War/wingnut…I wised up and quit drinking the Kool Aid. What really pisses me off are the people that blame the “Liberal/biased MSM” who only show the bad things but not the good things. My reply?…what good things? We built a school? We provided some clean water?…Woot!!!! Break out the champagne and call it mission accomplished! They cant even protect their own f$%^& vice president!, dozens of civilians get blown to bits on a daily basis yet some people think W and operation Iraqi Freedom is a success story?
February 26th, 2007 at 6:54 pm
I find this “you don’t have a better idea” line of reasoning tiresome. If we’re driving along, and I’m in the passenger seat, and I suggest to you that driving off a cliff is a bad idea, but you do it anyway…I don’t think it’s much of a defense for you on the way down to our firey doom to point out that I don’t have a solution for the problem.
W’s big idea uncorked a sectarian strife between three rival tribes that required a brutal dictator to keep a lid on it. We knew damn well that winning the “war” would be easy, but securing the peace between three disparate, diverse, and unfriendly tribes would be quite tough. It weren’t no mystery to anyone who knew anything at all about Shia vs. Sunni, Kurd vs. Arab, etc…but since those were terms that W had never heard until after the war began, you can’t really be surprised that he’s screwed the pooch on figuring a solution to the problem this little conundrum represents.
To be blunt: nothing we’re going to do is going to make it better, but he’s continuing to pretend maybe it will anyway. His intellectual revolver has gone “click” instead of “bang” a full six time cycle now, but he’s still pulling the trigger hoping a miraculous silver bullet will magically load itself.
That’s a long wait at the station for a train that’s not coming. It’s a lot of taxpayer money and wounded and dead Americans for W to play Hail Mary pass with.
It’s a losing issue for all of us. I just wish the 31% club would spare us the mock outrage about it. The question isn’t why we won’t support W, but rather why you 31% can’t grasp when something is obviously FUBAR.
February 26th, 2007 at 8:10 pm
Another way of looking at this is that Democrats are so highly partisan that they are locked into groupthink, while the only real debate occurs in the Republican ranks.
It seems more likely that the same reason that people line up on the aisles that they do is the reason they think they way they do on the war.
February 26th, 2007 at 8:22 pm
Oh please, tell me how we’re losing. That we’ve made people hate us? Sorry, they hated us already; withdrawing from Iraq won’t make them suddenly like us.
That Iraq can’t be pacified? The Brits seem to be doing a good job of it so far. In fact, other than Baghdad most of the country is quiet.
That we’re going to have thousands of troops stationed there for the foreseeable future? Been there, done that: Remember Korea, Germany, and Japan?
I know it’s hard to accept this, but even Hillary Clinton won’t pull out of Iraq if she’d elected. The only Democrat whom I believe would is Kucinich, and he doesn’t have a prayer of winning, largely due to his anti-war philosophy. So yeah, you can blame Bush all you want, but just keep in mind all your wonderful Democrats are going to end up doing the same things as Bush is doing right now.
Which is why they’re desperately flailing about in Congress right now, trying to pass something that makes them look as if they’re against the war without really being against the war. As Reid, Pelosi, and Co. are finding out, it’s easy being a critic; it’s alot harder when you have to take responsibility.
So why pay attention to those 31%? That means 69% of Americans oppose the war. I mean, if you take the polls at face value you should be able to get enough Congressmen to pass Cut-and-Run resolutions all day long without any support from those stubborn Republicans. Bypass them, if they’re truly such a small minority.
Ah, but there’s the rub: They’re not a minority, and the Dems know it precious well. The Dems wax all nostalgic about doing what they did in Viet Nam in front of the NutRoots, but deep down inside they know that surrendering and stabbing the troops in the back is political poison in the long run. Which is why Murtha’s “plan” is DOA: It was an open invitation for the Republicans. And it was the “Blue Dog” Democrats who killed it.
February 26th, 2007 at 9:34 pm
Without getting into the actual debate (don’t have the time), I’ll just state that I’m not a party loyalist, and I think he’s done a great job.
February 27th, 2007 at 12:23 am
I like him personally. I think he’s an ordinarily decent, honorable and sincere man. And I have wanted Saddam Hussein hanged since I saw the pictures of tens of thousands of gassed Iranian teenagers from the Iran-Iraq War. Not to mention the Kurdish babies following Gulf War I. I suppose that an argument can be made that using our military to rebuild Iraq is like Uncle using the same two-pound sledge to rebuild his pinkie. But it’s not really about Iraq, it’s about America. We cannot be seen to have cut and run and I support him on that.
February 27th, 2007 at 12:44 am
Iraq was going to be a long term commitment, and they failed in making people understand that, and to be prepared for it.
Funny, I understood it. In fact, if we do this thing properly we will be involved in this war (though the geography may change) for decades. My family has been represented there for almost twenty years now, and we still have one in harm’s way. Don’t tell me you wanted send us when you were angry, but now that you are tired you are willing to piss on us and our sacrifices.
Justin B, I was going to post a reply to you, but after rereading what you wrote I determined you are not worthy any effort. But others that read your tripe may be, so here goes.
How many times have 3,000 civilian Americans been killed in 80 minutes since the terrorists decided they had to rush to Iraq to defeat us there? What? What’s that you say? I can’t fucking hear you!
February 27th, 2007 at 10:00 am
Who is it you think “hated” us? Iraq’s Shi’a majority? Actually, they were pretty indifferent to us before, and now they’re increasingly getting impatient for us to simply leave.
It’s not about making people like us, nor is it a question of “losing”. The point is, we’re not winning. Unless your definition of winning doesn’t include preventing sectarian violence on a nationwide scale, regular bombings, attracting terrorists to train in country, ruining our military and our international prestige, and a country formerly the most secular in the region becoming a Iran-friendly theocracy.
You tell me how it is we’re WINNING. If we’re not winning, we’re just wasting money and more importantly lives.
Tell me, do you try hard to be this misinformed, or does it come naturally to you?
Over 50% of Iraq’s population is in the Sunni triangle. Most of Iraq is either barren desert or the mountainous region firmly in Kurdish hands. The regions that you describe as “quiet” generally also don’t have much in the way of human inhabitants.
The regions that are pacified are either entirely Sunni/Shia/Kurdish, or devoid of civilization. A majority of Iraq’s population lives in the areas that are NOT pacified and ARE rife with sectarian violence. If you’d listened to even a modicum of coverge of the British pullout, you’d know that they were concentrating their troops in an area of the country that was already quiet.
Tell me, if they have some magic formula for fixing Iraq, why aren’t they sharing it with us? The reality is they were intentionally not putting their troops in the thick of it. They left that job to us.
If things are peachy keen in Iraq, why is it that over a million and a half Iraqi refugees have swarmed into neighboring countries in the past year or so? More than 5% of Iraq’s population has bugged out. But things are going gangbusters, right?
The ability of you rightwing nitwits to deceive yourself is paralleled in its risible ludicrousness only by your blind allegiance to the Church of W.
Idiotic comparison.
There have been essentially ZERO deaths in combat in those regions in the LAST FIFTY FUCKING YEARS. We’re not in the middle of a bloody sectarian war between tribes in ANY of those countries. Those countries aren’t comparable to the Iraq debacle in any way, shape, or form. Well, other than they’re a sinkhole for American tax dollars.
Next.
February 27th, 2007 at 10:16 am
Oh, in case the above wasn’t clear, the point of that “50% in the Sunni triangle” observation is that THAT area is NOT ethnically uniform like the more pacified areas are. That’s the part of Iraq where most of the population actually lives, it’s ethnically mixed, and it happens to be where a lot of the oil revenue comes from. Like it or not, the Sunni and Shia are going to squabble over it.
Just what we’re supposed to do to keep that from happening other than partition and ethnic separation is hard to picture.
February 27th, 2007 at 12:53 pm
Nice switch. First you talk about how we’re losing, then you ask me to tell you how to win.
I don’t know exactly how to achieve what you would call victory, but I do know one thing: It ain’t gonna happen if we all pull out and leave.
It’s amazing how some people think giving your enemy what he wants will somehow win a war.
Uh, the Sunni Triangle consists of mostly desert area, and outside of Baghdad it’s been relatively quiet of late. The northern tip, Mosul, hasn’t seen any major combat since 2005.
And the Sunnis only make up 20% of Iraq’s population. Kurds are about another 20%, and the Shi’ites make up most of the rest. And most Shi’ites live in the southwestern portion of Iraq. Baghdad only has a population of about 5 million, out of a total 25 million in the country. Which means that a majority of Iraq’s population lives outside of Baghdad, BTW.
I could go on and on about how your BusHitler ravings are full of crap, but I’ll just keep it simple: Do you want to win or lose this war, Sebastian?
If you and the Democrats want to win, then put up a strategy for winning, and not just pretend to support the troops.
If you don’t, then have your Democrats either exercise their majority power and cut off funding to force a withdrawl, or get the fuck out of the way and let the President do his job.
But this “Bush-Sucks-Everything-is-Going-to-Hell-and-it’s-not-My-Fault” whining is getting old, fast.
February 27th, 2007 at 6:14 pm
[…] actually quote of yesterday, but still, Brutal Hugger: Nobody should be surprised that a current poll shows lots of Americans think Bush screwed the […]
February 27th, 2007 at 6:15 pm
Countertop:
If he had been upfront about this from the get go…
… he never would have won approval to invade in the first place.
February 27th, 2007 at 7:11 pm
How many times have 3,000 civilian Americans been killed in 80 minutes since the terrorists decided they had to rush to Iraq to defeat us there? What? What’s that you say? I can’t fucking hear you!
Your “point” is invalid. Iraq had NOTHING to do with 09/11. If it makes you feel better keep throwing that statement out there whenever you try and defend the administrations “winning record”.
February 27th, 2007 at 10:22 pm
What the hell are you talking about? I never mentioned winning or losing in the post you were responding to. I simply pointed out why people were unsatisfied with the conduct of the war.
You’re a clueless idiot, obviously.
That’s not a winning strategy. It’s not a viable excuse for continuing to lose American lives and tax dollars. You don’t exactly know how to achieve victory, but we have to keep on going? Hope is not a plan.
Unless there’s a clear and concise path to a clearly defined objective that rational and achievable, I can’t see how the American people would ever come to support this war’s continuation.
If you weren’t a clueless idiot, that’d be easier to understand. I’m really done being nice to people who partisan gain ahead of the lives of our troops that are going to DIE IN VAIN, and nobody exemplifies that crap better than somebody who says “I dunno how we’re gonna get anything done, but we can’t quit now cause geeze that wouldn’t look so good for our party”.
Can you even define what “winning” would constitute? I ask again.
Who exactly do you think is “the enemy”? We’re not fighting the Iraqi people. We’re trying to keep them from fighting each other. It’s not the “enemy” that wants us to leave, it’s the Iraqi people and the American people.
In addition to being a clueless idiot, you’re a fucking imbecile who can’t read. The Sunni Triangle is the most densely populated area in Iraq.
Major combat? As W reminded us on that aircraft carrier, major combat has been over for a long time. The point you’re ignoring is that Sunni/Shia conflict is on the upswing, as are bombings, death squads, executions of political figures, and general inter-tribal skirmishing. THAT is why Americans are still dying. THAT is why Iraq is producing a stream of refugees. THAT is why we’re no closer to a “solution” than we were two years ago. And THAT is why people are saying “gee, if we’re not making any progress, and there’s no sign we ever will…why are we still there?”
Again, I ask you, if things are so peachy keen, why has 5% of Iraq’s population left the country in the last year?
Keep ignoring that question if you like, it won’t make you look any less the clueless idiot.
No wonder you’re misinformed, you read at a second grade level.
I never said the majority live in Baghdad, I said the majority live in the ST. Big difference.
You may as well, nothing else you’re saying approaches any semblance of reality, so I can’t see any harm in you pretending that about 3/4 of the American people don’t actually think W’s fucking the pooch on this.
It’d be hard to convince people you’re any bigger the clueless idiot you’ve shown yourself to be today. Knock yourself out.
Sure I’d like us to win…if I could figure what you mean by win. Any definition of “win” that I can fathom includes an end to sectarian strife (impossible for us to do), a survivable democratic govt (which they don’t seem to want in the first place, they’re making it an oppressive theocracy as fast as they can), and a stable national security plan that doesn’t leave Iraq a terrorist breeding and training ground (good luck).
Sure, I’d love us to win. I’d also love the Orioles to win the World Series, Jessica Biel to leave Justin and come sit on my face, and the Brady Campaign to say “oops, we were wrong, never mind”. All of those things will happen before we “win” in Iraq.
The point I’m making is that we non-clueless idiots have come to recognize that “victory” or “winning” would include things that we simply cannot achieve militarily.
We can’t strafe and bomb and occupy and sniper and firefight Sunnis and Shiites into dropping a 1500 year old blood feud. Sorry. It’s just not in the cards.
We’ve been involved in Iraq longer than we were involved in either World Wars of the 20th C. We’ve spent more in constant dollars than we spent on 7 years of major combat in Vietnam. W’s made it pretty clear he does NOT have a coherent strategy or the wherewithal to pull this rabbit from his hat. He’s had a chance to win the confidence of the American people, and he blew it. Bad.
There comes a time when the people have to say to our leaders, “geeze, you’re just not getting it done, time for a change”. That time is now.
I can ASSURE you it’s not nearly as annoying and tiresome as the “Bush-is-great-and-ignore-reality-and-the-news-and-the-Pentagon-and-the-generals-who-tell-you-this-war-is-fucked-cause-W-rules-and-we-can-still-win-if-we-just-keep-doing-the-same-stupid-shit-over-and-over-and-over-and-I-love-W” head in the sand bullshit from the likes of you.
February 28th, 2007 at 11:19 pm
It has everything to do with Iraq, Justin B. You’re just too damn dumb to see it.
Iraq had no direct connection to 9/11. That is true. But Iraq had many indirect connections to it, all provable and all documented. You know about them, so I won’t waste any energy on a man who must make his point by deleting information that is proven.
Iraq enjoyed an armistice, not peace, not end of war, armistice whose conditions they never honored. Iraq stood as a symbol of how to tweak the nose of the Great Satan, while at the same time they supported terrorism all over the globe. Anyone who denies that is simply a liar. I do mean liar, I do not mean in error or mistaken,or uninformed, they are lying.
If you would continue to claim Iraq has no importance to the War on Terror, perhaps you should explain that to the the terrorists from all over the world who think it does and have gathered there to stop us at any price our apologists are unwilling to pay. We didn’t set the price on Iraq, the terrorists did. The war was over in days.
Yet the terrorists thought it important enought to engage in guerilla war against us, and when they couldn’t win that to start killing Iraqis in the hopes that sympathy for the slain would accomplish what all their attacks could not.
Tell the truth now, can you see them attaching such importance to a Dairy Queen stick-up? Me neither. So, we must accept the fact that the terrorists do think Iraq is important in the defeat of our War on Terror.
In case, you haven’t realized it almost everybody thinks you are a fool. The “insurgents” do, the Iranians do, Al Qaeda does, Hezbollah does, Hamas does. They all hope you keep on being one and guys like me get shouted down.
I am not a Bush supporter, but you won’t accept that, because you can’t. You are too shot through with perfidy and cowardice.
You don’t mind sending us when you are angry, fine, but now you are tired, well fuck you.
March 1st, 2007 at 7:29 pm
*yawn*
Your diatribe is for naught. Iraq had NOTHING to do with 9/11. Keep foaming at the mouth angry typing guy.